Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, March 25, 2019

Last week’s horror at the Washington Navy Yard barely interrupted the stale political chatter, the dueling poll-tested messages, the sensational reports on the latest celebrity divorce or stint in rehab. While the newest mass shooting did preoccupy reporters for a couple of days, its import — at least judged in headlines and cable hours — quickly faded.

It was just another day of horrifying gun violence in America. The public has grown inured to the death toll, complacent about the destruction. If 20 dead babies at Sandy Hook didn’t move us to act, well, what will? When will the United States recover from this insanity — this sense that we cannot or should not rein in guns?

The “rampage” shooting has become a feature of contemporary culture, a peculiarly American perversion. It occurs in a few other countries, but not with the frequency with which it strikes here. This sort of crime — this kind of atrocity — generally stars an angry and deranged man determined to take out his wrath on strangers before going out in a blaze of glory. And there has been a troubling uptick in bloodbaths like this over the last decade.

The gun lobby would no doubt point out that, overall, gun violence has declined over the last several years. That’s true. As crime of all kinds has decreased, so have murders and assaults with firearms. But the “rampage” mass shooting has become more deadly even as more routine gun violence, the sort associated with monetary gain or personal revenge, has decreased.

Earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service issued a report, “Public Mass Shootings in the United States,” that catalogued 78 mass shootings between 1983 and 2012. They accounted for 547 deaths and an additional 476 injuries. The Washington Post has pointed out that half of the deadliest of those — Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Binghamton, Fort Hood and the Navy Yard — have occurred since 2007.

Experts have begun to focus, appropriately, on missed signals about the mental state of accused shooter Aaron Alexis, who told Rhode Island police officers that he was hearing voices. Certainly, the United States needs to do much better in providing mental health care to every citizen who needs it.

But it would be much more practical to focus on reining in guns. As any therapist would tell you, it’s very difficult to predict which patients may turn to violence. Alexis reportedly saw doctors at the Veterans Administration, but he told them he didn’t present a danger to anyone.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit25
  • Print this page
  • 247

107 responses to “Reasonable Laws Could Solve Shooting Rampages”

  1. John Pigg says:

    I think the media has just as much responsibility for mass murders. In my humble opinion I think CNN jumps up and down before each new shooting or controversy.

    Just my opinion.

    p.s. I am supportive of some gun control measures. But I still am of the opinion that plastering a Mass Murder’s face all over the news is the last thing that some of these potential nutjobs need to be seeing.

    • oldtack says:

      Amen John! Well stated. Agree 100%.

    • RobertCHastings says:

      The same should have been said about terrorists and hijackers two decades ago. They live for the fifteen minutes of fame they get, AND for the notoriety it brings their causes, a process the media feeds right into.

      • John Pigg says:

        I blame the corporate 24/7 24h news cycle. At least two decades ago 15 minutes of fame was just that 15 minutes. Not two weeks during, and two weeks during the trial.

        But I think you are right to connect the two ideas.

        • RobertCHastings says:

          I think, back in the 1970’s,some felt that merely by reporting and depicting the acts of the terrorists gave credibility to their acts and that by doing so the media had somehow contributed to their validity. Terrorism is much less potent if it is not graphically depicted, and loses much of its power when reportage is diminished.

  2. gvette says:

    As usual, they forgot to mention our military bases are gun free zones. Maybe you might ask Billy Clinton about that.

    • Allan Richardson says:

      Our stateside military bases are places where our armed forces do their NON combat business, eat, sleep and rest. Except for bases AT THE FRONT, the odds of enemy soldiers invading a base, requiring “all hands to battle stations,” are almost nil. Therefore our troops should not NEED to carry weapons around to the mess hall, library, cinema, PX, doctor’s office, etc. The activities which involve weapons, such as the shooting range, have the needed weapons stored there. The shooting at Fort Hood was an EXTREMELY unlikely event, caused by a totally unsuspected soldier bringing in totally unsuspected non-GI weapons.

      There were NO reasonable measures that could have stopped this tragedy; the NRA recommendation to have everyone armed would not have been much more effective with soldiers than with civilians, because these troops were not “at battle stations” mentally, and they would have been in one another’s lines of fire. It would be an interesting experiment to simulate such a situation with paintballs multiple times, with a different set of bystanders each time, sometimes civilians, sometimes soldiers, and only the shooter knowing when and where the first shot would be fired. Does anyone suppose Wayne would give the Mythbusters a grant to set up such an experiment?

      • gvette says:

        spoken like a true liberal.Our military WAS armed, until Clinton got
        involved. Yes, I know, the thought of a soldier with a gun goes against YOUR grain. You’re part of the reason things are so screwed up.

        • Independent1 says:

          Of course, I’m sure all you gun lovers here are aware that two of the people killed at the Navy Yard were armed, and that after killing them, that Alexis took their guns and used them to kill more people.

          And I wonder if you’re aware of the road rage incident that occurred during the past few days when two motorists that were licensed to carry a concealed weapon, had an encounter on the highway that resulted in both of them being dead – Yep! They both pulled their guns, killing each other.

          And I’m sure you’re also aware, that of the 20 states that have the highest incidents of firearm deaths, that 19 of those 20 states are Red States, or battleground states governed by the GOP, with many of them having the highest incidents of gun ownership in the nation; and that many of the 11,000 that were killed by guns were in fact gun owners, who apparently couldn’t get to their guns to protect themselves, because less than 3% of those 11,000 killed (about 300) were the result of a justifiable homicide situation, that is, for the purpose of self-protection.

          The biggest NRA LIE, is the notion that it spews that owning a gun increases you’re security; nothing could be further from the truth. Keeping a gun on your person or in your home increases greatly the likelihood that you or someone in your home will be killed by the gun that you own. A woman or child that lives in a home where a gun is kept are at a 5 times higher risk of being killed by a gun – in most cases, the gun owned in that home. Of the 70,000 non-fatal gun shootings that occur each year – the vast majority of these shootings occur in the home of a gun owner. Even insurance companies are starting to realize that gun ownership is risky; many life and health insurers are starting to ask on their applications if the applicant owns a gun. Gun owners are soon going to start paying higher premiums because they own a gun.

          • gvette says:

            One of the other things to think about, the guards are not military. They are nothing more then rent a cops. They aren’t MPs. The city that just hit number one in gun deaths is Chicago.
            Oh wait, they have some of the toughest gun regs around.
            As you get your information from left leaning news, and reports, you miss out on a lot. You don’t like guns…that’s ok. I hope the day never comes you need one.

          • Independent1 says:

            Unfortunately, city only gun laws really serve very little purpose unless it’s a walled city and you can search everyone that’s bringing in illegal guns. I don’t have any facts on Chicago, but a recent article I read on Boston, said that more than 65% of the guns recovered this year in solving gun related crimes in the Boston area, were found to have been purchased outside of Massachusetts. I’m fairly certain that the same would be true of Chicago; criminals and maybe even not so criminal people are illegally bringing guns into Chicago.

            And despite the high incidence of crime in Chicago, that city may be the leading City gun deaths, but it’s Louisiana that’s the murder capital of America. In compiling homicide related statistics by state for the years 2011 back to 2007, Louisiana lead the nation BY FAR in gun related homicides: it’s the only state in the nation that has averaged more than 10 gun related homicides per 100,000 during that period and it actually exceeded 11/100,000 in each of the 5 years (it actually reached 14.2 in 2007).

            Here’s the top 12 for you (Illinois is 12th):

            State/Rate in 2011

            Louisiana/11.2
            Mississippi/8.0
            New Mexico/7.5
            Maryland/6.8
            S. Carolina/6.8
            Alabama/6.3
            Arizona/6.2
            Michigan/6.2
            Missouri/6.1
            Tennessee/5.8
            Georgia/5.6
            Illinois/5.6

          • gvette says:

            So I guess you’re like that dim wit in the white house, take all the guns. I hear that a lot from your kind. I know history isn’t a favorite of most, but control the healthcare, and disarm the population. I guess you forgot about Germany. I haven’t. There’s more going on, then you either care to admit, or you are in favor of it.

          • Independent1 says:

            No! I wouldn’t suggest taking away guns – but I do support not allowing certain guns like AR15s and other semi automatics with large clips – AND background checks FOR EVERY GUN SALE ARE A MUST!! Right now, the estimate is that 40% of guns being sold are being sold without a background check. That’s TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!

          • gvette says:

            Well, crooks don’t get their guns from gun stores. Most states have background checks. Now the funny thing i’ll mention. Your leader, and Holder put a shithouse full of guns out there. They seem to be finding their way back. As far as what kind of guns people own…it’s a choice. For a little while longer, this is still sort of a free country.
            Like I said earlier, I do hope you are never in a spot, where you need a gun to protect you, and yours. We may not agree on things, but I don’t want anything to happen to you.

          • Independent1 says:

            Wrong!! A large number of states DO NOT require background checks on sales that are not made by registered gun dealers; and a lot of guns are sold a gun shows by sellers that are not federally registered. There are still loopholes in the law that absolutely have to be closed. Guns are still getting into the hands of far too many people who should not have them.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Which is exactly how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold obtained their guns that they used at Columbine HS in Colorado in 1999.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Crooks DO, in large numbers, secure their weapons from gun stores, with the knowing and willing complicity of the gun industry. Gun manufacturers have set up shops just beyond the city limits of Chicago (which prohibits handguns inside the city) where straw buyers purchase (with the knowledge of the gun manufacturers) quantities of handguns(and other guns) and carry them inside the city to be sold out of the trunk of their cars. Large numbers of guns used in crimes in New York City have been traced to dealers far outside the city. This same situation obtains in every large city in the country that has attempted to protect their citizens by issuing strict gun control laws. When these guns wind up in the hands of gang members, what do YOU think will happen? Maybe something like happened last week in Chicago?

          • gvette says:

            Hi Robert. I understand what you’re saying. Funny thing about crooks is, if the place they get their guns goes away, they go elsewhere. Even if it means crossing the border. As I listen to the news every day, Chicago is always in it.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Used guns can be picked up illegally (or legally) anywhere. They have an unusually long life for a consumer product. However, in 1999, Smith & Wesson admitted their culpability prior to the collapse of the lawsuit by our largest cities, and admitted that their marketing practices had resulted in the gun problem in our major cities, and they were in the process of working something out. However, thanks to the NRA and many federal and state legislators, the US Congress eventually passed a law making gun manufacturers immune from suit. In addition, after generations of the SCOTUS making decisions that restricted private ownership of firearms, with Scalia writing a very arcane majority decision this was reversed, just a few short years ago. Over the past thirteen years, the entire landscape of the gun issue has drastically changed, thanks to the NRA and Antonin Scalia.

          • Fred Goss says:

            Gvette it’s so typical of you to resort to name calling and juvenile, unsubstantiated rants when someone engages you in an intelligent debate. You were just served by Independant and all you could come back with is “duhhhhhh…Obama bad!!!!!”
            gvette is an F-ing idiot and he proves it with each and every post.

          • ralphkr says:

            You have an excellent point there, gvette. Germany was the first country to start a National Health Care system in 1885 and they have one of the least expensive systems with some of the best results. Germany spends far less per person than the US spends and have longer life expectancy then we have. Re disarming the population: The Weimer Republic (1919-1933) passed extremely stringent gun control laws (somewhat explains why the NAZIS and Communist fought with chains & clubs) but after Hitler and the NAZIS took over they passed laws allowing all citizens full access to military weapons except for Jews who were allowed no firearms of any form.

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            It’s harder to send them to the gas chambers when they are armed, Ralphie.

            Have a nice day, Ralphie!

            “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would
            things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example
            in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of
            half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn reflecting on how easy it was for Stalin to overrun and murder the opposition that was not armed.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Once again, in typical fashion you have used a point that is, in this discussion, pointless. Gun control does NOT translate to gun confiscation. Even in Australia they did not confiscate, they bought back. The Obama administration has not even suggested the confiscation (or buyback) of civilian weapons, ONLY a closer monitoring of who winds up with guns, a reasonable approach that WILL reduce gun violence for the very simple reason that it will keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them,either through history of criminality, or mental defect.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            No one in the White House is advocating confiscating(or even buy back) of all civilian-owned weapons. If your hangup is (apparently) with the Second Amendment, try reading Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. That makes it pretty clear the founding fathers did NOT countenance an armed general populace, ESPECIALLY not with better weapons than the military possesses. Go ahead with your response of the right of the people to be armed to prevent a government dictatorship from taking over. That makes no sense, at all. If you don’t WANT or CARE to listen to reason, then why even continue the discussion.

          • silence dogood says:

            There is nothing in the Amendment you note that impacts private ownership of guns.
            It establishes the governments right to own weapons.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            The AMENDMENT that I note? Thank you for agreeing with me,and the entire gun control demographic, about the Second Amendment. However, if you are referring to Article I, section 8 of the CONSTITUTION, you are once again right. The original Constitution does NOT grant gun ownership to private individuals, the issue only arises with the particular amendment to the Constitution that is so clearly worded, but NOT so clearly interpreted.

          • silence dogood says:

            Not even close.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Controlling the Health Care has nothing to do with controlling the population, but very much to do with the economy. 25,000 plus in this country die from a treatable condition because they did not have insurance. A quarter of a million or more every year in this country must file bankruptcy due to medical bills. Over the past fifteen years or more insurance premiums have risen at more than double the rate of inflation, while paychecks for the large majority of the middle class have remained stagnant, a condition that contributes enormously to the first two points. Apparently, you have not read, or cannot understand, the GUN CONTROL proposal. There is nothing being put forward regarding confiscation or elimination of private ownership of firearms. The are, however, several different proposals for disarming criminals and keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, such as the mentally ill and convicted felons. What happened in Germany has no application to today’s issue of gun control in the United States. Anyone can interpret what they read to forward their agenda; however, your take on the Nazi’s disarming of their civilian population is way out in left field.

          • gvette says:

            I don’t know, it didn’t work out for the Jews, did it.
            As for Barry care, all I can say is, time will tell. I’ve learned
            anything the government runs, is usually run poorly. We’ll see where the rates go. I always like the freedom to buy what I want to buy. I don’t like being told by the government. I guess you do.
            Sorry, that’s just an assumption.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            You, as a tax payer, have no choice in the matter when it comes to paying for an emergency room visit by someone who is uninsured, and yet that doesn’t seem to bother you. Healthcare costs that are picked up by the taxpayers are a big reason for the rise in the cost of healthcare around the country, and a big reason that so many emergency rooms around the country are closing down. But, apparently, that doesn’t bother you, either. Of course, there are the 25,000 a year who die from treatable conditions because they DON’T have insurance, and the hundreds of thousands who must file for bankruptcy because they don’t have enough or don’t have any insurance. We all expect certain things from our government and get miffed if we don’t receive. After 44 years of working, and paying into both Medicare and Social Security, I would be very upset if I did not receive what I was guaranteed to receive after those 44 years of working for my retirement. One of two things is happening regarding the ACA – either the Republicans and their supporters are lying, or the President and HIS supporters are lying. Based upon what we have seen over the past few years, I am more inclined to believe that the Republicans are lying. Of course, that is just an assumption.

          • gvette says:

            Oh, i guess you didn’t catch what Obama said. LOL…he admitted Barry care sent taxes up for more people, and that the cost are going to be more. boy, I wish I could play the clip for you. I’m guessing you were lied to by the one you trust. You’r feelings for the republicans…I’m not fond of as lot of them.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            What really bothers me about the whole right wing assault on Obamacare is their TV ad campaign of lies. Remarkably,they are almost recycling the same ones they used five years ago. There is a late-middle aged woman claiming she has gone through two different cancers over the past twenty years and that the ACA will harm her and her family, with bureaucrats in DC dictating who she can see for treatment and what treatment she will receive, a rehash of the “death panel” argument (which, BTW, never materialized). The ACA was NEVER touted to lower healthcare costs, merely to reduce the rate of their expansion. Premiums that so many are CLAIMING to be on the rise because of the ACA are in fact falling, by as much as 60% for some demographics. And itis pure cynicism to tell young people to NOT purchase insurance because they won’t need it, knowing sull well hundreds of thousands annually declare bankruptcy because they DON’T have insurance. Real smart to tell a kid saddled with a $50K education debt that he doesn’t need health insurance – by the time he gets out from under bankruptcy, his career will be over. I don’t know about you, but the only thing that has pushed my taxes up has been the federal government FINALLY eliminating PART of the Bush tax cuts and reinstituting FICA..

          • gvette says:

            Good morning, Robert. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have heath care. What I don’t want, is another giant bureaucracy. you’re concerned about what you pay in taxes, as are I. This one will cost a ton. I’m for small government. i’ll give you some rond numbers. NY state. One million six hundred thousand government workers. The pay for one month is six and a half billion. That’s not counting pension, and hospitalization, that they don’t contribute to. Do you think for one minute that I want to see more? Maybe you do. You know as well as I do, this is unconstitutional. I don’t care what Roberts said. Oh, and you will find it to be job killer.
            Have a great day.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            How much per year do you pay in federal taxes, both income and FICA? Do you know where it all goes, and do you know where ALL the monies collected by the federal government go? The federal budget is available online, either in its entirety or in abbreviated form or just for certain elements of the federal budget, depending upon what you want to find out. I find it difficult to believe that state employees in New York do NOT pay into their own retirement and health care;however, that is an issue that New York must settle for itself. In North Carolina, the millions of current and future retirees are and have contributed, significantly, to their retirement and healthcare expenses. What is happening in New York is more a New York issue than a national issue,and as I do not live in New York, all I can do is sympathize. New York has a history of providing its citizens with the best amenities available without a very wise view to the future, much like the City of Detroit, and it seems like it has not been more than a couple of decades ago when New York was facing the same situation as Detroit.
            If you disapprove of the ACA, research it and find out if what you are being told is correct. There is much more to the destruction of jobs in this country than the ACA, for that process began before Obama even entered public life.

          • gvette says:

            Hi Robert. Oh, by the way, I’m Scott.

            Here’s a link. See what you think.http://www.nationalmemo.com/reasonable-laws-could-solve-shooting-rampages/#comment-1061945068

            As far as what I listen to, it’s usually talk radio. I know you don’t like, or agree with that, but I enjoy listening to real people, talking about their own rates that have gone up. Remember, even Harry Reid said it was a train wreck. His own words. He’ll destroy the economy, just to support Barry.
            I no longer live in NY state. I’m now in NC. Hopefully, going to Texas.
            Have a great weekend, Robert!!

          • Independent1 says:

            Robert, I read an article a few weeks back where the author claimed that it was Reagan signing the bill that forces an ER to treat any patient that comes into the ER claiming a medical emergency which is the single biggest reason America’s healthcare costs greatly exceed those in the rest of the world. Of course, virtually no other industrialized nation on the planet needs such a law as virtually all of them have universal healthcare – ERs outside of America know that they’re not going to get the short end of the deal when they treat someone for an emergency; so they don’t have to pad their bills to cover for those who don’t pay.

            A second big reason stated was the fact that because America doesn’t have single-payer, there is no group large enough to have much of a bargaining position with healthcare providers. So whereas in other country’s with single-payer, the government can virtually say, if you don’t like what I’m willing to pay you, try to place your business somewhere else – when there is no somewhere else. Healthcare providers in other country’s aren’t free to demand whatever they want for their services and get it, like they can here in America.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Absolutely correct. In Germany, there are approximately 70 competing health insurers, all required by the government to offer the SAME product at the SAME price, similar to our own system of crop insurance. Where is the competition in such a system? The competition is in the degree of service, and it can be quite differentiating. Medicare CAN and DOES require negotiating on costs to patients for services AND pharmaceuticals, and is consequently able to bring costs down, something the Republicans have resisted, and ARE resisting in additions to Medicare known as Obamacare. BCBS in North Carolina is the premier provider of health care services, and has for years been nationally recognized as one of the better (albeit more expensive) providers. Medicare Advantage plans through BCBS provides virtually everything here. It is unfortunate where your friend lives that BCBS is apparently NOT so universally accepted.
            Single-payer would definitely have provided a better product for everyone. Until money is removed from politics, however,the same old same old will continue, for along with financial institutions, big Pharma, lawyers, and unions, the insurance industry is among the most favored for special benefits resulting from the political contributions.

        • ralphkr says:

          Gee! gvette, you’ve shown me how absolutely forgetful I have become. Until I read your post I did not remember that Clinton was president in the 1950s. I had been laboring under the mistaken belief that Clinton was president from 1993-2001. According to your post he must have been president in the 50s because I was in the service then and at bases in California & Alaska I had to turn in my side arm to the MPs when I got to base and then check it out when I went off-base. Any serviceman caught with a civilian weapon (loaded or not) or a military weapon while in possession of live ammo was subject to courts martial, reduction in rank, and stockade time (usually).

          When we were going to the rifle range we would check out our weapons (In Alaska I was in charge of my unit’s weapons) and go to the range where we would be individually issued ammo. After we were done we had to return the live ammo and brass & the count had to equal the number we had signed out.

      • middleclasstaxpayer says:

        So, in your own words “There were NO reasonable measures that could have stopped this tragedy” yet you’d like to blame the NRA in some way, right?? Well, “We are told NOT TO judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics.” BUT…
        “We are encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics.”

        • Independent1 says:

          Sorry, but it’s not about the action of a few lunatics!! It’s the lunatic actions of thousands of gun owners that end up with more than 100,000 shootings in America every year: 30,000 of them lethal – which includes about 19,000 people killing themselves and another 11,000 shootings with someone else ending up dead (11,000 HOMICIDES!!). It’s almost at the point where guns kill more Americans each year than auto accidents: THAT IS NOT “THE ACTIONS OF A FEW LUNATICS”!!!

          And on top of the 30,000 plus deaths, there are 70,000 other generally nonsensical shootings!! Thousands of them severely wounding and maiming kids – the vast majority of them in the homes of idiot gun owners!!!!!!!

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            So let’s see….maybe we should go to the homes of EVERY registered gun owner and CONFISCATE all THEIR guns. Then the ONLY ones WITH guns will be the CRIMINALS & PSYCHOS who obtained & possess their guns illegally & UNREGISTERED. THAT will allow criminals & other undesirables to RULE everyone else, as, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” This is a great idea don’t you thinkl?????

          • Independent1 says:

            Wow! If what you’re suggesting is such a terrible thing, how come that’s the way the rest of the world operates with MUCH MUCH lower rates of gun deaths, and deaths overall??? What you’re suggesting DOES NOT HAPPEN!! When guns are less available, even crooks, psychos, would be suiciders and many other nefarious people: DON’T GET THEIR HANDS ON A GUN!! The ones who really have access to guns in virtually every other country are the police – the ones who are charged with protecting people!!!

            You, like so many people in America, believe the LIES that the NRA keeps spewing that guns MAKE YOU SAFER!! That is a flatout LIE!! The fact that only 300 people of 11,000 plus who were murdered in states with very high gun ownership rates, many states with gun ownership over 50%, prove without question that owning a gun increases your risk of being killed by a gun FAR MORE than it will EVER PROTECT YOU!! So keep on sucking that NRA Koolaid and you may just end up dead one of these days from that gun you own. (And if you’re married with a gun, your wife and kids risk of being killed by a gun, even the gun you won, is 5 times greater than if you didn’t own it.)

            Australia created laws that drastically reduced their percent of gun ownership and guess what happened: the murder and suicide rates in Australia were cut more than in half!! You need to stop spouting the NRA LIES!!!!

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            You are ignoring the fact that the genie is already out of the bottle. MILLIONS of guns exist in the US. You could ONLY hope to take the legally owned weapons from law-abiding citizens, NOT the unregistered ones held by criminals. When guns are outlawed, ONLY OUTLAWS will have guns. Best example is in Kenya, where there is NO 2nd Amendment, and guns are only possessed by police, military & government officials. In Kenya it was EASY for criminal terrorists to mow down UNARMED shoppers at will…no one had ANY means of defense. Of course, if you are like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, you say no one needs a gun, and Bloomberg brags about riding the NYC subway unafraid, yet he FAILS TO TELL us that he is always guarded by 6 men heavily armed with guns. Here’s my suggestion for YOU…post a sign on your front lawn that states: “this home is GUN FREE.” and see where that gets you. By the way, all your “facts” are grossly exaggerated & baseless.

          • Independent1 says:

            If the sale of guns were completely banned by the end of 2013, it would be decades before the number of guns available to kill people in the U.S. would decrease to any meaningful level. An estimate of the guns in America done in 2009 estimated that there were more guns than there were people: the 2009 estimate was that there were more than 330 million guns in America, when there wasn’t even 330 million people in America in that year.

            So the notion that banning guns would suddenly create a situation where only bad guys had guns is ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY ABSURD!! ONCE AGAIN YOU’RE PARROTING THE LIES AND DISTORTIONS FROM THE NRA!!!!

            When are people like you going to GROW UP!!!! And stop acting like CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            OK, since you are so knowledgeable in this arcane area, how about entertaining us with a liberal’s version of “reasonable” gun laws that will stop a shooting rampage. And please retake “reading comprehension,” which you obviously failed in high school.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            “arcane”? What is so arcane about gun control, and the facts that either side uses to support their arguments? Had you successfully completed your own recommended course in reading comprehension, you would recognize that what indepentent1 says is in no way arcane, just plain old simple logic, backed up by verifiable facts.

          • Independent1 says:

            Thanks for the backup!! As you noted, some of the trolls on the NM obviously don’t have much common sense and are hard to reason with.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Too bad some people don’t understand how logic works.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            If the genie is out of the bottle, then put it back in the bottle. You keep coming up with excuses NOT to do anything about the proliferation of guns, why don’t you make a reasonable proposal that would reduce the rate of gun deaths in this country? Can you prove that what independent1 has presented is exaggerated and baseless? I seriously doubt it, especially if you would dare to use a reputable source, like the CDC or ATF.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Thank you, friend. We have to watch out for each other’s backs when dealing with unreasonable people.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Hey sounds like a good idea to me. Let’s just ALL get totally stupid and unreasonable. You are doing an excellent job of lighting our way to total stupidity. REASONABLE gun laws, along with the right to sue gun manufacturers for their sales and marketing actions that, in the eyes of any reasonable person, will result in firearms winding up in the hands of people who should not have them, WILL result in far fewer gun deaths in this country than occur now. Virtually ALL manufacturers of consumer products are liable for their products. The same can be said about cigarets that you people claim about guns,that guns/cigarets don’t kill, but people using guns/cigarets do. Why do you think our courts found against the tobacco industry? And why do you think that the NRA put out a full-court-press in the US Congress to prohibit cities from suing the gun manufacturers? I guess than one is just to far above you, and youcertainly won’t hear anything at all about it on Fox.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            You engage all too much in hyperbole.

  3. Lovefacts says:

    Nothing will change until our lawmakers, the Supreme Court, and rabid gun lobby decide those of us who are unarmed have as much right to live as those with weapons.

  4. whodatbob says:

    A mentally deranged person shoots a bunch of people, so we attempt to control the style of weapons non-deranged people can own and do nothing to care for mentally deranged people or institutionalize them.
    Seems putting all the effort into helping those with mental health issues rather then more gun control is more productive. Fix the problem not the symptoms.

    • JD Mulvey says:

      Figure out who might kill people before they do it and then cure them. Piece of cake, right Bob?

      • RobertCHastings says:

        Wasn’t Tom Cruise in a movie with that premise? What was it, “Minority Report”? We already know that at least 80% of personality is genetic, so many people are hardwired from birth to have some of these issues. Mental illnesses have genetic components (at least, SOME of them do). Just Saying.

        • JD Mulvey says:

          But what does that get you in this context? Are you saying we should pre-emptively arrest people based on genetic tests we barely understand?

          Speculation about mental illness is one thing. Translating that into a program that prevents mass shootings is another.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Speculation? Are you claiming there is no relation between mental illness and the mass shootings this country has experienced over the past decades. Most of us are familiar with Columbine, in which at least one of the shooters (Dylan Klebold) was diagnosed with something stronger than depression. The shooter at the Newton elementary school was not mentally ill, but he had a severe communication disorder (autism) that made his understanding of the consequences of his actions something less than reasonable. The shooter at the Navy Yard definitely had some diagnosed problems. And pretty much every mass shooting between Columbine and the Navy Yard involved at least one individual with a serious mental disorder. This is NOT to say, however, that ALL individuals with mental disorders are potential mass killers; but it is a good indicator for the likelihood of such behavior. NONE of the mass shooters over the past two decades would have been granted access to firearms had adequate restrictions been in place, OR had the plaintiffs been allowed to proceed in 1999 with their suits against gun manufacturers. Were the gun industry to be required to face its culpability in their selling and marketing procedures, most of the guns that make their way into our inner cities would not even exist. Every consumer product except guns is liable to suit. The tobacco industry is STILL paying large sums of money for education purposes, AND they have been successfully prosecuted for their marketing practices. Why is the gun industry exempt?

          • JD Mulvey says:

            Nothing you’re saying gets us the slightest bit closer to making people safe from gun violence. Even if I (and everyone) accepted that what you say is true, you still haven’t explained how you can use it to (1) identify likely mass murderers, and (2) keep them from killing people. Does the guy at the gun store start diagnosing schizophrenia?

            All the concern about mental health does nothing to put a workable and legally enforceable mechanism into place to prevent these killings in the future.

          • whodatbob says:

            Ah! You just identified the areas that require hard work needed to solve this problem. No it is not encumbered on the guy in the gun store to diagnose schizophrenia. Every gun purchase form a licensed gun dealer requires a background check by the FBI and government approval provided by results of FBI.

            Do the work to solve these problems and all other problems in the mental health gun ownership. Stop stepping on the 2nd amendment.

          • JD Mulvey says:

            Then you’re in favor of expanding background checks to all gun sales? Seems like an obvious first step to what you say you want.

            No 2nd Amendment issue there. So why not support it like Joe Manchin did?

          • whodatbob says:

            I did not mention expanding background checks, I suggested adding those with mental issues to the list that cause applications to be denied by the Feds. All guns sold by a licensed gun dealer, including guns sold by a dealer at a gun show must pass a background check. Only guns sold by individuals are not covered by a background check.
            Expanding background checks is a separate issue to which I have no answer. I remain neutral .

          • RobertCHastings says:

            The guy at the gun store should 1) always submit a background check, on every gun purchase, 2)be required wait a reasonable time (five days) before turning the gun over to the purchaser, 3)sell ONLY one gun at a time (waiting period included) to any individual, 4)submit data to a federal database of people with mental or criminal issues. And it shouldn’t just be the guy at the gun store, it should be ANYONE who wishes to make a transfer of ownership on a gun. This restricts NO ONE from buying a gun (except those that we agree SHOULD NOT have guns and it prevents the straw buyers from purchasing in quantities and selling them into neighborhoods that certainly don’t need them. The database is a crucial part of this plan, but some feel it is an encroachment on individual liberties. Coupled with the Second Amendment, Article I,section8 of the Constitution makes it pretty clear that private ownership of firearms is NOT a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

          • whodatbob says:

            Arrest, no! Prevent those with metal issues from owning guns. Make available programs to help those in need.

        • ralphkr says:

          The big problem, Robert, is that some of the most brilliant and productive people in history have much of the faulty genetic code & personality faults that also creates monsters in others.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Yes, and if Vincent Van Gogh had had a gun, he would have blown his head off rather than just cutting off his ear. Of course, many serial killers, such as Ted Bundy,are geniuses, and even did their deeds WITHOUT guns. However, the geniuses who rise to the level of an Einstein would simply state they have no need for a firearm – after all, what is a firearm compared to an atomic bomb.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            I’ll bet you’d use this same logic (NO need for a firearm) with the poor doctor from Connecticut who’s home was invaded by two killers who tied the good doctor, then commenced to torture, rape & murder BOTH his teenage daughters AND his wife. The doctor didn’t need a gun either, did he??? I wonder what your reaction would be if that happened to YOUR wife & young daughters???

          • RobertCHastings says:

            How did you come up with that one? I mean comparing the doctor in CT to Einstein, that is quite a stretch. You miss the point, entirely, and statistics have clearly shown that even if the doctor had a gun, it is more likely that HE would have been shot with it, and the home invaders would have used the gun on their next victims.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            So, you are clearly stating that the doctor in Connecticut was BETTER OFF NOT BEING armed, and instead sitting helplessly watching his two teenage daughters & wife , raped, tortured & murdered, as the killers “may” have taken his gun away from him. What kind of heartless & ignorant cretin are you? If you have a wife & kids, I hope they never read what you wrote, as they will also realize what a miserable & selfish weakling you are. You should be very ashamed of what you’ve suggested.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Allow me to engage in the same hyperbole in which you are engaging. You feel it is better for every man, woman and child in the country to possess a gun and do whatever they will with it, carrying it to school and shooting his classmates, carrying it to the mall or theater and killing as many as he can as quickly as he can, assassinating a politician with whom he disagrees, killing his wife and children, killing a referee at a junior soccer match. The carnage we already have is not enough for you, just kill everyone you can as quickly as you can, just kill ANYBODY who disagrees with you, who “disrespects” one of your gang members, who cuts you off in traffic, who lets his dog crap on your lawn, just whatever reason at whatever time. You should be ashamed of yourself, you cowardly little person who probably sucks his thumb while cleaning his gun.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            Let’s start at the beginning instead of changing the subject……The comment you made was that the doctor in Connecticut was BETTER OFF WITHOUT a gun to (potentially)protect & save his two teenage daughters & his wife from the brutal & sadistic rape, torture & murder they experienced from two home invaders. Your logic: “the gun MAY have been taken from the good doctor.” The VAST MAJORITY of men & women would give up their lives to save their children, but YOU either do NOT have a family or you are a selfish coward & a weakling because apparently you would NOT defend anyone in your family from the same type of rape, torture & murder. Do you NOT believe these two murderous felons, who raped, tortured & killed two innocent teenager girls & their Mon in front of their Dad should have been stopped by ANY means possible??? I can’t wait to hear your answer.

          • RobertCHastings says:

            In more than fifty percent of such cases, in which a homeowner has a gun, the gun either winds up being used on the homeowner or eventually in the hands of the attacker as a stolen weapon. You are welcome to dramatize the situation as much as you feel comfortable with; however, it does not alter the facts that 1)there was no weapon with the homeowner and consequently no chance for him to defend his family with the nonexistent weapon and, 2)if the vast majority would give up their lives to defend their family, why is the good doctor still alive? The only thing I can concede to you is that the attack was heinous and thankfully BOTH perpetrators will meet their appropriate justice.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            Firstly, the doctor is only alive because he was severely beaten, then securely tied up and left for dead. Regarding your statement that 50% of guns are taken by intruders is completely fallacious. Provide a reliable reference (not a liberal phony one) that shows this is the case. In ANY case, I as a family man would rather take my chances to help prevent serious injury or worse to my family by having a means to defend them. My observation is this: Phony liberals like the Mayor of NYC (Bloomberg) say OTHERS should NOT be allowed to own guns, and he brags about taking the NYC subway to work daily, yet fails to mention that he has 6 heavily armed men guarding him 24 hours a day. Liberals motto: “Do as I say, NOT as I do.”

          • RobertCHastings says:

            I did not say “50% of guns are taken by intruders”. It was much simpler than that. More than 50% of guns in homes where intrusions occur are used by the intruders on the occupants or are stolen by the intruders – a much different proposition than the one you mistakenly interpreted. My source is the ATF, through the book “The Last Gun” by Tom Diaz. Check the source, and check his sources. He provides abroad bibliography and resource list.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            Sorry, but your “analysis” is incorrect AGAIN! Here are the facts:
            By Dan Noyes, Center for Investigative Reporting

            Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you’re likely to hear this hard boiled response: “They steal them.” But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners’ homes and cars. “Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,” Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

            In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the BOTTOM of the list Info confirmed by ATF agents Jay Wachtel.
            Better luck next time in making up “facts.”

          • RobertCHastings says:

            Your response is faulted in its logic. I in no way implied or averred that ALL crimes are committed with stolen guns. As your ATF expert knows all too well,the source in inner cities of a significant percentage of guns used in crimes is from sources outside the inner city, such as gun shows or guns shops set up by the industry to funnel guns into the inner city to supply their best customers, contrary to the interests of those who live within the city.

      • whodatbob says:

        Complexity of solving a problem does not justify ignoring the the main cause of a problem by doing a quick fix that does not solve problem and saying it does. Do the work to solve the real problem!

    • RobertCHastings says:

      We seemed to get along quite well for the period during which there was in place a federal “assault rifle” ban, not to say that there were no mass shootings (the DC sniper was during that period). However, explain the need for military style semi-automatic weapons, and you may convince yourself that there is no need for them. People don’t use them for hunting, simply because many jurisdictions REQUIRE the hunter to use single shot bolt-action, or a limited capacity magazine. The drawback for hunters for a rapid firing type weapon is its reduced accuracy. Hunters REQUIRE accuracy because they aren’t hunting off their back porch, they are hunting in difficult terrain with reduced visibility, not actually knowing just who may be within the range of their weapon. Many hunting accidents result from this very circumstance. No responsible hunter is going to hunt deer (squirrel, possum, etc.) with an AK47 – the ONLY prey for such weapons is people, large numbers of people. For target shooters or others, once again, accuracy is the important thing. The “assault rifle” is not something people need for hunting or personal defense. However, for a demented person who for whatever reason wishes to kill a large number of people, the “assault rifle” is the ideal platform, especially something capable of accepting a 50-round clip. I know this may seem like a little too reasonable to you, but just bear with it.

  5. Dominick Vila says:

    Effective legislation may not eliminate the incidence of crime, but it would make it more difficult for criminals and for those afflicted by mental illness to acquire lethal weapons and carry out the massacres we experience every few weeks. Perhaps not surprisingly, that may be one of the reasons the champions of negative logic opposed the expansion of Reagan’s Brady Act to include background checks for gun purchases via the Internet and at gun shows. Another reason may be that reducing violent crime may make it more difficult for those suffering from paranoia to acquire lethal weapons and carry them in public places to, allegedly, defend themselves against the criminals elements whose rights they are determined to protect.

    • RobertCHastings says:

      The president established a White House hotline after the Newtown massacre so he could be alerted every time another deadly shooting took place in the US. He received at least one notification every day thereafter, sometimes several.

  6. JD Mulvey says:

    It sounds like Cynthia’s not persuaded by the sudden concern for mental health among the right wing.

    Have they ever misled you before?

  7. RobertCHastings says:

    We are getting to the point where many critics of our culture of violence knew we would get, and that is that reports of mass killings with firearms have become just a small blip on the media’s radar.

    • Independent1 says:

      Here are some excerpts from an article in the Daily Kos that was originally published by the UK’s Daily Mail, which I think backs up your comment about countries outside the US recognizing that America has a GUN PROBLEM!

      When you consider the fact that we (America) have the highest gun ownership rates among our peers (89 guns for every 100 Americans), and that we own about 35-50% of all the civilian owned guns In The World, well then it should come as no surprise that we also have a gun death problem as a result.

      The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents, says the report, that also reviewed Canada, Japan, Australia and much of Western Europe. None of the 16 other countries examined in the study came anywhere close to that figure. Finland, which is said to have slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents, was closest to the US in the table.

      Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death in America for those aged 15-24 and most of those homicides, again, involve guns.

      But here’s the part that sticks out. Use this information the next time the NRA or any other gun manufacturer supporter says “we don’t have a gun problem, we have a violence problem, or a video game problem, or a Hollywood problem”:

      The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It’s the lethality of those attacks that stands out. More guns equal more deaths. Pretty simple equation really. We don’t seem to be more violent than our peers and yet, more of us die as a result of more guns being available to us when we decide to get violent.

  8. disqus_ivSI3ByGmh says:

    Considering that both Gerald Loughner and James Holmes both said they would have continued shooting had they not run out of ammo…
    For all the talk about gun-free zones, Loughner’s rampage in Tucson was in one of the most well-armed areas of the country. Where were the “good guys with guns” at that event? They were nowhere to be found.

    • middleclasstaxpayer says:

      Where were the “good guys with guns?”…BOTH the areas where these mas shootings occurred were “GUN-FREE ZONES” which meant that ALL the LAW-ABIDING citizen complied with the law & and thus carried no weapons. ONLY the psychotic killers were armed (against ALL laws to the contrary), so the law abiding folks were sitting ducks, unable to defend themselves or their loved ones. Since ONLY law-abiding folks comply with SO CALLED “gun free zones”, maybe these laws should be amended. Just ONE armed honest citizen may have been able to stop the rampages before more innocent folks were killed.

      • Independent1 says:

        Guess you’re not aware that two the people killed by Alexis were armed – and after he killed them, he used their guns to kill more people. You’re perpetuating an NRA LIE!! Guns DO NOT make you safer – they, in fact , increase the probability that you will be killed by up to 5 times (as unfortunately, the two people who were armed may have discovered that day – they may have done something foolish, as people that carry guns are prone to do, that ended up by getting themselves killed).

        • middleclasstaxpayer says:

          Well then, I would suggest that YOU post a prominent sign in your front yard that YOUR home is a gun-free zone. Then, when someone has to do a burglary or home invasion, they will at least know THEY will be able to return home to THEIR loved ones without fear of injury. You, of course, may not be so lucky. Do you think the poor doctor in Connecticut who’s two teenage daughters & wife were raped, tortured & killed might have benefitted from having a gun to save them all? I’ll bet HE does.

          • Independent1 says:

            Wow! You really have swallowed those NRA lies about guns protecting you haven’t you!!

            Guess you’re not aware that many of the 20 states with the highest gun ownership rates are also the states that lead the nation in gun related homicides (which means a high percentage of the people killed by guns each year actually owned a gun proving that a gun didn’t protect them). Less than 3% of gun related homicides each year are classified as justifiable due to self-protection of life and property (of the 11,000 people killed by guns each of the past few years, less than 330 of those 11,000 each year were justifiable homicides for self or property protection). FAR MORE gun owners get killed doing something foolish in getting themselves killed while misguidedly trying to protect themselves or their property; FAR MORE GUN OWNERS DIE THAN EVER succeed in using the gun they own to protect themselves. Just keep on drinking the koolaid the NRA is spewing and you may unfortunately end up as one of the homicide statistics.

            By the way, did you see the article in the news over the passed week or so about the two gun owners who had concealed weapons permits who got into a road rage encounter that ended up with them both dead?? Yep!! Just like I mentioned, they both did something foolish which resulted in them whipping out their guns and killing each other. The guns they carried sure protected them, NOT!!!

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            You are MAKING UP frivolous & inaccurate lies to justify your silly ideas & fears. Maybe YOU could NOT be relied upon to possess & handle firearms safely & prudently, but millions of Americans can & do. Firearms have stopped many more vicious crimes & attacks than ever before, but do it your own way. Just remember, if & WHEN you or a family member faces an armed thug or worse, a home invader (very common lately) you may rue the fact that YOU are UNPREPARED. You CANNOT replace your wife & kids with excuses after the fact. No amount of “liberal logic” can repair that kind of loss. Sure, you’ve got “insurance” on your car & home (only property that can be replaced) but none of us can replace a lost love one to a criminal attack, no matter what.

          • Independent1 says:

            Believe what you will – I do not make stuff up. There are 70,000 non fatal shootings each year so that together with the 30,000 homicides there are over 100,000 shooting related incidents. Only someone totally clueless wouldn’t realize that if the not the homicides, the vast majority of the 70,000 non fatal shootings had to occur in homes that owned a gun. Whatever you want to believe, a separate study group found that the fact that a woman or child would be killed by a gun was 5 times higher in a home that owned a gun than in one that did not. And it’s only a matter of time before gun owners will be paying a premium for at least life, health and homeowners insurance. In case you haven’t noticed, lots of insurance companies (in addition to doctors) are including in their applications a question about whether or not a gun is owned in the home. Why? because there is considerable added risk of a shooting occurring in a home that owns a gun. So life, health and homeowners insurance companies may soon start setting higher rates for gun owners.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            Again you have missed the main point….while most folks “insure themselves” against loss of physical “possessions” (cars, homes, property, things) YOU apparently are UNPREPARED & UNINSURED against a criminal attack or invasion of your home or yourself…so what if insurance rates increase, I’d rather be prepared to protect the most valuable possessions I have. my wife & kids. By the way, NONE of my physicians has EVER inquired of gun possession in my home. If a new doctor ever did, it would be the LAST time I visited that physician.

          • Independent1 says:

            It’s not me that’s missing the point IT’S YOU!! You refuse to believe that the gun you own IS NOT GOING TO PROTECT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!! Where did you ever qet the notion that you are better with a gun than someone who breaks into houses for a living??
            I’ve given you a number of statistics that PROVES THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE!! A far greater percent of people who have the same notion as you do, that they can successfully protect themselves against a professional thief, end up dead trying to prove that. Less than 3% of homicides are justified as being for self defense when probably as much as 50% of those who died in those homicides owned a gun. Wake up!! It’s you that’s refusing to believe facts, NOT ME!!!

          • Independent1 says:

            By the way, you’re apparently in a backward part of the country. The pre-physical medical questionaire of the clinic where I go has been asking about gun ownership for more than a year now. It’s all part of the new “WELLNESS/PREVENTATIVE APPROACH” to healthcare. They ask the question so they can quiz you about whether or not your keeping the gun in a safe place so you kids don’t get their hands on it.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            We are from one of the largest (and most violent) cities in the US. NO One has EVER asked these questions, not doctors, insurance agents or anyone else. They have NO experience or knowledge of this subject, and again, I would NOT do business with anyone who pried into our private lives in this offensive manner. If you or others don’t feel qualified to safely possess & utilize firearms, then of course you should not. But millions of Americans are qualified & comfortable with arms. If not, you might be a British citizen now or worse, under Nazi German control. The only thing that has allowed Americans freedom is those that came before us and were brave & skilled enough to PRESERVE our present day freedoms, all done with great courage (& guns). Sorry for the bad news but that’s how we got to be free in the first place. And by the way, I’m absolutely sure that when the German’s “beloved” Hitler told his people in the 1930’s that guns were unsafe in their hands, they probably believed every word of it, as it was coming from a (then) well-respected “leader” so they complied, and were much the worse off for their compliance.

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            Since you like statistics, try these on for size: there are over 475,000 life-threatening Emergency room visits per year in the US for overdoses of prescription & non-prescription drugs AND alcohol…..makes your 70K NON-fatal shootings seem small by comparison. Should we ban alcohol, aspirins and codene cough syrup? Here’s the stats from the Centers for Disease Control:
            “The misuse and abuse of prescription painkillers was responsible for more than 475,000 emergency department visits in 2009, a number that NEARLY DOUBLED IN LAST 5 YEARS.”

          • Independent1 says:

            I forgot to ask: Are you going to post a prominent sign on your property saying “In this house is a proud gun owner, come and try to rob me!!”

          • middleclasstaxpayer says:

            Don’t have to….any armed criminals or psychotics will discover this upon illegal entry….I have silent alarms throughout my home to protect my family, and will know immediately if illegal entry has occurred day or night. You, on the other hand, are helpless against criminal intrusion, UNLESS of course, you are like the hypocrite NYC mayor Bloomberg who says “no one needs a gun” and BRAGS of riding the NYC subway to work daily. Yet he “forgets” to mention that he is guarded days & nights by heavily armed MEN W/ GUNS??? Guess WE don’t need to protect ourselves (and our precious kids & family) with guns be HE DOES????? Strange isn’t it…do as I SAY, NOT as I DO?????

  9. ObozoMustGo says:

    We must know the truth first in order to solve the problem of nutcases committing mass murder. Here is the TRUTH:

    The most evil murderers in America are all DemonRATS. That’s right, liberal DemonRATS. You don’t hear this in the leftist media because it does not fit their agenda to strip rights away from Americans, but this is the truth.

    1) The Ft. Hood killer was a registered DemonRAT radical muzzy. Muzzies are almost all DemonRATS, by the way.

    2) The Columbine killers were too young to vote, but their families were all registered DemonRATS and widely known to be “progressives”

    3) The Va. Tech murderer wrote hate mail to President Bush. He hated Christians and conservatives. Wonder where he got that idea?

    4) The Aurora CO theater killer was a registered DemonRAT, worked for the Obozo campaign, and was an Occupy Wall Street bum who actively protested. He was as leftist as he could possibly be.

    5) The Newtown killer of children was a registered DemonRAT who hated Christians.

    6) The AZ killer that shot Gabby Giffords was a self-described progressive and his family were registered liberal DemonRATS.

    7) The Family Research Council shooter was a leftist, gay activist Democrat.

    8) The rogue ex-cop on a killing spree in Southern California was professed leftist freak DemonRAT and Obozo zombie out to prove his leftist points. And many of your moron DemonRATS supported his killing of others.

    9) The Boston Marathon Bombers were radicalized jihadists AND were registered DemonRATS that voted for and supported Obozo. Google “Dzhokhor Tsarnaev twitter Obama” and you will see the results.

    AND NOW THE LATEST UPDATE:

    10) The Navy Yard shooter……… time will tell, but I’d bet my house he was a liberal DemonRAT and Obozo supporter.

    Is anyone seeing a pattern here? The most heinous killers in America ARE progressive, leftist DemonRATS with guns. Wonder how the media misses this connection? Hmmmmmmm…..

    Clearly, progressive liberalism is a disease of the mind. So, the solution to gun violence is now very obvious to any thinking person. Every single one of you registered progressive DemonRATS should be placed on the mentally ill listing maintained and shared by ALL government law enforcement agencies. Of course, since mental illness is also considered incompentence, they should all be removed from positions of power. AND they should all have their rights to keep and bear arms revoked with all guns confiscated from ALL registered progressive DemonRATS. All you leftist freaks are so interested in stripping everyone else of their rights, you shouldn’t mind when we strip you of yours. In fact, you should support our efforts to
    take guns from you.

    After all, it is FOR THE CHILDREN. Don’t you agree that if we can save ONE life by stripping leftist freak DemonRATS of their guns that such a move would be worth it? We have the evidence to prove this would be a good measure.

    Have a nice day!

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

    • Independent1 says:

      More lies from a totally useless crumbag – Sorry, I don’t believe one word of your rant. What I do know though, is that of the 20 states in America with the highest gun ownership, more than 90% of them are GOP run states; which fits right in with the fact that of the 20 states with the highest FIREARMS MORTALITY RATES, that more than 90% of those ARE ALSO GOP RUN STATES. And that of the 25 states with the highest AUTO ACCIDENT RATES, more than 90% of those ARE RUN BY THE GOP!! And of thew 20 states with the highest infant morality rates more than 90% of those ARE ALSO GOP RUN STATES.

      ALL GOP RUN STATES CARE ABOUT IS MONEY – the fact that all 20 of the states in America with the shortest longevity rates ARE ALL GOP RUN STATES – doesn’t factor into any of their thinking at all!! The fact that 9 of the ten states in America live an average of 4-5 years longer an residents in 90% of GOP run states doesn’t matter to THE GOP AT ALL. IT’S NOTHING BUT MONEY, MONEY, MONEY AND MORE MONEY!!!!!!!!

      • ObozoMustGo says:

        More lies and distortions from a leftist freak posing as a so-called “independent” person. You throw around trite leftist cliches like the best of them. For example, leftist freaks love to cite “infant mortality rates” as though there is some crisis. (it seems there’s always a crisis for you idiots to solve). Well, it 6.7 per 1000 live births in America. That is NOT a crisis. But to the leftist freaks like you, you create a false scare by using percentages and language crafted to incite concern. It’s certainly odd, however, how leftist freaks who LOVE MURDERING UNBORN CHILDREN are so worried about the infant mortality rate is almost non-existent. Factor in children that don’t make it out of the womb alive and your beloved infant mortality rate is sickeningly high. It’s off the topic of guns directly, but is a perfect example of the use of hyperbole by leftist freaks to mislead.

        And you are doing it on guns, also. The fact is that you’ve mislead by citing STATE stats (which are probably specious and supplied by the liars at media matters) when gun crimes ARE most accurately assessed on a city by city basis. And I can assure you that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the cities with the worst gun violence are run by DemonRATS. AND they have serious gun control laws or outright bans.

        The stone cold truth for all of you leftist freaks out there is that we have the God-given right to self preservation and defense. And that right is codified in our Constitution in the 2nd Amendment that specifically states that our right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. And it is not there for hunting. It’s there for self defense against those who would harm us, be they private citizens or our own government.

        Now, the point of my post was clear. If you DemonRATS want to take everyone’s guns, look at the data which clearly points out that DemonRATS are the mass shooters, and let the disarming begin with all of you first! After all, if it could just save one child’s life, it would a measure we should take.

        Have a nice day, moron, and remain oblivious!

        “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is
        oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

        • RobertCHastings says:

          “Lies and distortions” is the best you can do? Why not do the reasonable and logical thing and ask independent1 for his sources so you can personally evaluate the data you claim he is distorting? Straightforward facts are generally pretty difficult to distort so much that you can arrive at a conclusion the total opposite of what objectivity would project. However, that is something you folks seem to do very well at. Like the polls that showed Romney winning the presidential race, or the polls that show the large majority of Americans DON’T want “Obamacare”. As Detective Joe Friday used to say, “just the facts,ma’am, just the facts.”

    • RobertCHastings says:

      And the greatest mass murderer of the past two decades was a Republican, George W Bush, who got us into a war that we should not have been involved in and caused, directly or indirectly,the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. While Bashar al Assad is approaching Bush’s total, and MAY eventually surpass it, Assad will eventually be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. Bush will NOT be prosecuted by the ICC simply because the treaty establishing that court was never signed by him and the US is subsequently not subject to the court’s jurisdiction. I wonder why he didn’t sign the treaty? Think he might have expected he would be prosecuted?

      • Independent1 says:

        Notice Robert that Bush and Cheney rarely travel outside the country. They know full well that although international courts may not try them, there are quite a few countries who would just love to do just that within their own court systems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.